My reviews have been a little shoddy, mostly written for a point of reference later when I have to remember what films I actually watched, and what the gyst of them was. I tried to see if Facets had a copy of Marketa Lazerova but, to no avail. I have to do a presentation on film noir next Thursday, so right now all my cinematic energy is being devoted to that, so at least the Film Noir Journals shall prosper.

If Repulsion were a black comedy, then The Cremator would be it. Employing wildly distoring lenses, quick cutting, and a blending from Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism, Herz film is quite loaded. Music plays a roll throughout. Eerie choirs sing during a murderous pursuit, and it is commented in the film, by Karl Kopfrkingl's (Rudolf Hrusinsky) love of music. Only a sensitive person can appreciate music, and he mourns for people who haven't experienced Liszt or Schubert. One of my favorite laughs was when he wanted to here "Danse Macarbe" because it was more lively.

The mysterious black haired woman has been interpreted as a few things. She is the silent character juxtaposed to the music, a watcher of sorts. Her role is like the masked performers in Double Suicide, frequently popping up, and possibly reminding us of the drama. The first time I saw her, I viewed her as the younger version of Lakme (Vlasta Chramostova), Karl's wife. She is a reminder of who he was vs. who he's becoming, and her appearance always seems a grim reminder. Likewise when he wonders where she will be incarnated after her death, this sheds a possible solution. Quite a good film, and I'm glad to have revived the festival on the strength of this.

Well the Czech Modernism series has finally reached Chicago, and this was the opening film. The film is not expertly made It has a clumsiness and incongruity that can alienate some modern viewers. What is endearing is the film's charm, much like Vigo's Zero for Conduct, which is so similar its striking. What's more amazing is both of these films came out in the same year, making it nearly impossible to cite one as influencing the other. The films flaw is in its design. The picture sets up some sort of narrative within its story that at times seems to fail. I thought that the story bounced back to the present tense, but only at the very end does the framing mechanism return. The film itself concerns an orphanage that is essentially run by the orphans. A sharp contrast to many films about horrific treatment at the hands of corrupt and unfeeling caretakers. This inmates-run-the-asylum principle is what makes the film fresh today. What's more striking is that the two main children have parents that are still alive. One too poor to support her child, and the other too dysfunctional. With any framing narrative within a narrative you're bound to have a certain suspension of disbelief, but once we forget the framing the story functions.